I hate guns.

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: the unknown
The guns back then, and in the midwest, are used for vastly different purposes than simple 'defense." In urban areas, it's just plain illogical to own a gun for "defensive" purposes for your family. Though I hate citing these ("studies" with agendas, and correlations, which by definition have zero cause and effect relation) there was a study that said "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or loved-one than to be used against an intruder" has some merit. How many times has an intruder come into your home where you say "damn I wish I had a gun right now"? To me, a gun in a house with kids is a greater risk than an intruder coming into your house meaning to kill all of you.

The key to keeping guns safe IMO is to teach proper usage, and don't keep them loaded. If possible, store the guns and ammo in separate places or in a safe.

I've been considering getting something like this both to keep my guns safe, as well as to keep important documents in case of a fire:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/P...tial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1

...if I had a family with kids, it'd be a no brainer.

Gun education should be the first thing you teach your kids, after not shitting in their pants.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JDub02
Armed people prevent crimes.

lol

Why are you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NY City? Why is the burglary rate greater in the UK than it is in the US? Why do criminals surveyed in prisons routinely list armed citizens as a much greater worry than the police?

ZV

NY does not allow CCW.

No..we just tend to be more civilized.

don't get me wrong, i wish i could CC in NY/NJ.

But you can't and such laws will help in case you become drunk and your judgment becomes impaired or your home is broken into. You can't accidentally shoot someone and you won't be powerless to defend yourself because others will likely not be armed with a gun either.

so when someone somehow gets a gun comes at me, i am completely defenseless.
because you know somehow, they will illegally get their hands on one.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
The key to keeping guns safe IMO is to teach proper usage, and don't keep them loaded. If possible, store the guns and ammo in separate places or in a safe.

I've been considering getting something like this both to keep my guns safe, as well as to keep important documents in case of a fire:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/P...tial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1

...if I had a family with kids, it'd be a no brainer.

Or, you know, don't have them at all.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: the unknown
Or, you know, don't have them at all.

Don't have what? Criminals, guns, or the Bill of Rights?

 

[the unknown]

Sorry, the thread jumped to another page and I didn't quote. Imma noob

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: hiromizu
I believe you, but from the objective point of view, that's only half of the equation. A CCW holder is more inclined to generate favorable stats to protect their ideologies, hence the stats are probably skewed.

So the State agencies that put together the statistics are somehow now in league with CCW holders? It's not possible to skew arrest and conviction statistics. Those come straight from the police. It's not like they just say, "well, you have a CCW, so we won't count this arrest in our official paperwork". You've gone well past ridiculousness with this claim.

Originally posted by: hiromizu
By my rationale yes, people who are licensed are far less likely to commit a crime than the 'general population' however, the 'general population' is diverse and cannot be controlled that easily unless simple laws that applies to everyone is in place. Punishment will attend deviants.

Again, by that same logic, we should ban all automobiles. It would save far more lives each year than banning firearms. If simply "protecting" the masses is your goal, you cannot logically support people having cars.

The CCW population is also diverse, I don't know what you're trying to imply there.

And simple laws _do_ apply to everyone. It's already illegal to rob someone. It's already illegal to murder someone. If criminals don't pay attention to those laws, why will they magically pay attention to a law saying that the guns they have (which are illegal for them to have under current laws, I might add) are not "more" illegal?

Originally posted by: hiromizu
However, look at it from the real perspective of the people that controls you from above: you are part of the 'general population' and thus part of the problem. A new order needs to be put in place so that our arguments become meaningless and powerless because frankly, they are. That new order should be a ban on all firearms.

This is so far from having any statistical or rational validity that there's nothing to respond to. There is no logic in this anywhere. It actually sounds rather like someone defending a cult. The "real perspective of the people that controls you from above"? A "new order"? That's insanity pal. You're one step away from buying an old typewriter and moving into a hunting cabin in Montana.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JDub02
Armed people prevent crimes.

lol

Why are you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NY City? Why is the burglary rate greater in the UK than it is in the US? Why do criminals surveyed in prisons routinely list armed citizens as a much greater worry than the police?

ZV

NY does not allow CCW.

It does allow individual people to buy and own handguns however.

And what do police carry that makes criminals fear them?

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: the unknown
Though I hate citing these ("studies" with agendas, and correlations, which by definition have zero cause and effect relation) there was a study that said "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or loved-one than to be used against an intruder" has some merit.

It only has merit if you ignore the fact that the study included an abusive spouse as a "friend or loved-one". And that it counted cases where one of both family members were engaged in illegal activities at the time of the shooting as "kill(ing) a friend or loved-one". And that it counted guns that were owned illegally.

If you remove cases where the either the owner or the "friend or loved one" is engaged in illegal activities then the study points in the opposite direction and indicates that the firearm is much more likely to be used against an intruder. Especially if you count an abusive spouse or a drug-dealing cousin as an "intruder" rather than a "loved-one".

ZV

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hiromizu
By my rationale yes, people who are licensed are far less likely to commit a crime than the 'general population' however, the 'general population' is diverse and cannot be controlled that easily unless simple laws that applies to everyone is in place. Punishment will attend deviants.

Again, by that same logic, we should ban all automobiles. It would save far more lives each year than banning firearms. If simply "protecting" the masses is your goal, you cannot logically support people having cars.

ZV

An automobile serves a functional purpose to society. Risk vs Reward.
A firearm does not serve a firm enough function for society. Less crime? Great. Then give everyone a gun who can get a permit. Under current permit laws that just about everyone, except the felons, is it not? (note: I know little about current gun laws, other than they're ardently opposed by the entire Republic party unfortunately intertwined with gun associations, so I'm sure with the past 8 years they're at a minimum). Now that everyone has a gun, do you feel safer? Then I don't think it lessens crime, its just another bs correlation.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hiromizu
By my rationale yes, people who are licensed are far less likely to commit a crime than the 'general population' however, the 'general population' is diverse and cannot be controlled that easily unless simple laws that applies to everyone is in place. Punishment will attend deviants.

Again, by that same logic, we should ban all automobiles. It would save far more lives each year than banning firearms. If simply "protecting" the masses is your goal, you cannot logically support people having cars.

ZV

An automobile serves a functional purpose to society. Risk vs Reward.
A firearm does not serve a firm enough function for society. Less crime? Great. Then give everyone a gun who can get a permit. Under current permit laws that just about everyone, except the felons, is it not? (note: I know little about current gun laws, other than they're ardently opposed by the entire Republic party unfortunately intertwined with gun associations, so I'm sure with the past 8 years they're at a minimum). Now that everyone has a gun, do you feel safer? Then I don't think it lessens crime, its just another bs correlation.

I live in TX where there are a lot of guns around. I feel pretty damn safe.

 

[91TTZ]

I'll tell you what's bad about guns:

Guns illicit an emotional response in irrational people. To them, getting killed by a gun is extremely dramatic. They fear it all the time. While they're much less likely to be killed by guns than other things, they don't fear those things because they're not dramatic. Many more people die due to smoking and drinking than die due to guns, but those things are commonplace and they don't strike fear in their eyes the way guns do.

It's similar to the fear of dying due to terrorists or flesh eating bacteria versus dying due to lung cancer from smoking. One is extremely dramatic, attracts news headlines, and outages the public enough to petition their lawmakers to do something at any cost (including their rights), while the other is simply more likely to kill them. But it's not exciting enough to make them stop smoking.

 

[the unknown]

Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

 

[nicolaskl]

Again, by that same logic, we should ban all automobiles. It would save far more lives each year than banning firearms. If simply "protecting" the masses is your goal, you cannot logically support people having cars.

Any rational assessment of the value of something includes a cost vs. benefit analysis. It would seem that your analysis includes only cost, so it's not really valid. If every privately owned vehicle disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow our society would almost entirely cease to function. Can you say the same thing about guns?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus
The world is not a twisted militant puritan ideal where the righteous knights of 'I own a gun' will save us all from evil.

Nor are they going to cause all evil as you have certainly seemed to imply in previous posts.

No-one is arguing that firearms should not be treated with respect. No-one. But there's a world of difference between handling something with respect and banning it outright.

I spent a summer as a parks worker. There were all kinds of tools that we used that were very dangerous if used improperly. Poisons, axes, machetes, chain saws, even a water turbine-driven gristmill/sawmill that had an un-guarded blade sharp enough to send a worker to the hospital for stitches just from walking into it when it was turned off. When running, the un-guarded saw is powered by a 140 hp water turbine and rips without difficulty through entire trees.

Any of those things were a more immediate and direct danger to me than the any firearms I've ever had and yet, because of proper handling I never had a problem with them.

Firearms are the same way. Despite the insistence of some, the vast majority of people are indeed responsible enough to handle firearms. Time and time again it is shown that legal owners of handguns are not a statistically-significant source of problems and yet time and time again the laws focus on restricting what legal purchasers may buy without imposing stricter penalties on people who actually commit crimes with firearms.

ZV

You appear to be arguing with an alternative version of me who posted something about banning guns - possibly in another dimension - but I'll answer anyway in the interests of interdimensional peace...

A firearm is obviously a very serious weapon and, as I already said, should be treated with respect. Going around saying they are less dangerous than a powertool, and that most people are responsible enough to handle them, that they are 'statistically insignificant', without once mentioning safety or training is actually very harmful in itself. You really want young people to have this attitude? To assume from this that guns are completely safe and everyone should have one?

Guns are acceptable, sometimes nescesary, but they are NOT a good or great or glorious thing.

I do not hate guns. Would you like to hear about someone I know who does hate guns? She grew up in Sierra Leone in west Africa - she remembers hiding under her school desk while AK-47 rounds smashed the classroom windows and whistled overhead. If those guys only had sharp sticks and shields like they did 100 years ago there would have been a few skirmishes and nothing more. Now look at Africa... just look at the place...

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: nicolaskl
If every privately owned vehicle disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow our society would almost entirely cease to function. Can you say the same thing about guns?

You're comparing the impact of every vehicle disappearing off the face of the planet to guns being banned only in the US? How is that logical?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hiromizu
By my rationale yes, people who are licensed are far less likely to commit a crime than the 'general population' however, the 'general population' is diverse and cannot be controlled that easily unless simple laws that applies to everyone is in place. Punishment will attend deviants.

Again, by that same logic, we should ban all automobiles. It would save far more lives each year than banning firearms. If simply "protecting" the masses is your goal, you cannot logically support people having cars.

ZV

An automobile serves a functional purpose to society. Risk vs Reward.
A firearm does not serve a firm enough function for society. Less crime? Great. Then give everyone a gun who can get a permit. Under current permit laws that just about everyone, except the felons, is it not? (note: I know little about current gun laws, other than they're ardently opposed by the entire Republic party unfortunately intertwined with gun associations, so I'm sure with the past 8 years they're at a minimum). Now that everyone has a gun, do you feel safer? Then I don't think it lessens crime, its just another bs correlation.

Persons not allowed to have firearms:

- Convicted of _any_ domestic violence charge, including misdemeanors.
- Convicted of _any_ felony.
- Adjudicated at any time as mentally incompetent by the courts.
- User of any controlled substance.
- Under any court order concerning stalking or harrassment.
- Have renounced US citizenship.
- In the US illegally.
- Fugitive.
- Under indictment for a felony.
- Dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.

That's the full list.

And yes, I would feel safer if all legally eligible people had firearms.

ZV

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

I seriously hope that you're not an American. If you are, you should be ashamed.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground.

How is a 5'3" woman on "equal grounds" with a 6'0" man?

How am I, at 6'0" and 160 pounds, on "equal grounds" with a 6'2" 220 pound weightlifter?

If both the 5'3" woman and the 6'0" man have a firearm, then they are indeed on "equal grounds", but without it, the woman is at a severe disadvantage. The same goes for me against the body-builder.

Sorry, but without firearms people are decidedly unequal.

ZV

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: the unknown
If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Who says noone would have guns? They'd only be banned meaning legal gun owners could no longer own them, they wouldn't magically disappear.

Suggesting that guns would disappear after they're banned is just as ridiculous as suggesting that drugs/alcohol/xxx would disappear after they're banned.

Also, guns aren't like cars where they wear out after 10 years, guns last a long time.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

I seriously hope that you're not an American. If you are, you should be ashamed.

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

I seriously hope that you're not an American. If you are, you should be ashamed.

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

The Bill of Rights should never be amended. Fucking Period.

And fuck you for thinking that you have a god damn say in what my liberties are.

And last time I checked, "noone" isn't a word.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

Luckily for everyone in the US, nearly the entire country disagrees with you and your radical beliefs. Even Obama supports the right of the citizens to own guns.

Ideas such as yours have been voiced before, and they've been wisely discarded by people far more responsible than you.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground.

How is a 5'3" woman on "equal grounds" with a 6'0" man?

How am I, at 6'0" and 160 pounds, on "equal grounds" with a 6'2" 220 pound weightlifter?

If both the 5'3" woman and the 6'0" man have a firearm, then they are indeed on "equal grounds", but without it, the woman is at a severe disadvantage. The same goes for me against the body-builder.

Sorry, but without firearms people are decidedly unequal.

ZV

Right. When's the last time you saw a 6'0'' 160lb man fighting a 5'3'' woman? And more importantly, that was to the death. With guns, it most certainly would be. "Don't discharge your firearm unless you're prepared to kill" right? Minor scuffles would turn into open firefights in your everyone has a gun world.